The Matthewite Response to the 1983 Anathema Against Ecumenism: An Example of Old Calendarist Sectarianism

 

On April 1, 1985 (Old Style), Thursday of the week following Thomas Sunday, the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy was convened for its second regular session under the presidency of His Beatitude Archbishop Andreas. Present were Their Eminences Metropolitans Gregory of Messenia, Matthew of Attica and Megaris, Nicholas of Piraeus and the Islands, Lazarus of Vresthena, Pachomius of Argolis, Theodosius of Phthiotis, and Titus of Servia and Kozani; the Chief Secretary, Hieromonk Kirykos; and the secretaries, Fr. Chrysostomos and Fr. Paul. Among other matters, it also took up the following subjects:

[…]

2) Russian Synod of the White Russians Outside of Russia.

This matter occupied the attention of the Hierarchy following what had been presented a year earlier as a decision of this Russian Synod concerning the anathematization of Ecumenism.

A year ago, following the “anathematization of Ecumenism” by the Russian Synod, the Holy Synod sent, through the priest in America, Fr. Anthony Gavalas, the following letter, to which no reply whatsoever was given either by Fr. Anthony or by the Synod presided over by Metropolitan Philaret:

 

TO:
The Very Reverend Fr. Anthony Gavalas

Very Reverend Fr. Anthony, greetings in the Lord.

We inform you that your letter of October 25, 1983 (Old Style), together with the enclosed text of the anathema against Ecumenism, was brought before the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy (January 13-14, 1984), which, having studied it, judged that the decision in question of the Russian Synod does not constitute a Confession of Faith, since it contains no formulation whatsoever of an Orthodox Ecclesiological Confession regarding New Calendarism, precisely on account of which the spiritual communion of the Church of the G.O.C. with the Russian Synod was severed in 1976.

Likewise, the Holy Synod considers it imperative that the Russian Synod take into consideration our document No. 1158 of February 20, 1976, and especially its concluding paragraph, which reads as follows: “Any further relations with you shall depend upon your future position and upon any possible revision of your Creed regarding the Calendar question, concerning which we shall also pray to the Lord” (K.G.O., February 1976).

Beyond these matters, reasonable questions and perplexities arise concerning the decision in question.

a) What reasons moved the Russian Synod to adopt such a decision against Ecumenism, when in the past it considered itself incompetent to pronounce judgment upon New Calendarism, which is assuredly Ecumenism in theory and in practice?

b) Following the anathematization of Ecumenism, what is the position of the Russian Synod toward New Calendarism and, more generally, toward the new calendarist or old calendarist “Churches,” which participate in the ecumenical heresy through spiritual communion and New Calendarism?

c) Why is the decision against Ecumenism set forth apart from the relevant Encyclical and does not bear the signatures of the Synod?

d) What consistency does the Russian Synod show with regard to this decision of its own, or what consequences might this decision have for the Synod itself and the other members of the Russian Church?

e) Why did the Russian Synod send absolutely no official document to the Holy Synod of the [Matthewite] Church of the G.O.C. of Greece, nor announce this decision of its own through any official publication (but completely ignored it), although the latter, from the beginning, had in practice repudiated both New Calendarism and Ecumenism and, precisely for this reason—that is, because of the incorrect ecclesiological position of the Russian Synod toward New Calendarism—severed spiritual communion with it (the Russian Synod) in 1976, and has since then, for approximately ten years, awaited its “revision of its Creed concerning the Calendar question”?

The Holy Synod particularly emphasizes that since 1976 it has awaited your Synod’s examination of the cause of the severance of ecclesiastical communion. Now again, on the occasion of the anathematization of Ecumenism, although it has received no official information whatsoever concerning this from your Synod, it desires and prays that, even today, a direct meeting through synodal representatives may take place for discussion of all the matters, both old and new.

Until that day, you too are personally requested to direct all your efforts toward this end. In this regard, Metropolitan Philaret is also requested to prohibit all interference by third parties in the ecclesiastical affairs of the [Matthewite] Church of the G.O.C. of Greece, as well as any possible establishment of parishes or dependencies in Greece.

We ask you duly to inform Metropolitan Philaret and the Synod under him.

May the Lord bless every further action, that it may be to the glory of His Holy Name and for our salvation.

By order of the Holy Synod
The Chief Secretary
† Hieromonk Kirykos Kontogiannis

Unfortunately, the Russians maintained complete silence regarding the above letter. At the same time, although a more conservative course was expected from the Synod in question, it was unfortunately observed that it continued its common course with the Ecumenists.

Thus, the following points were noted concerning the Russian Synod:

a) Members of it prayed jointly not merely with New Calendarist Ecumenists, but also with the heterodox in England, during the official ceremony for the reception of the bones of Edward, King of England, whom they had recently proclaimed a Saint.

b) It accepts, in accordance with an Encyclical of Metropolitan Philaret, that the Filioque does not constitute an impediment to accepting someone as a Saint.

c) It accepts the New Calendarist-Ecumenist Churches as Orthodox and canonical Churches.

d) It accepts that the “anathematization” has a local character (expediency?) and is not valid for the other New Calendarist Churches.

e) It accepts the validity of the Mysteries of the schismatic Moscow Patriarchate (which is burdened not only by its common course with the New Calendarist-Ecumenist Churches and by its imparting of the Mysteries to the Papists, but also by the schism of 1927 through the subjection of the Church to the atheistic regime, which Patriarch Tikhon had already condemned by anathema).

f) It refers the question of New Calendarism–Ecumenism yet again to a future Ecumenical Council.

g) It maintains within its fold communities that follow the New Papal Calendar; and

h) It receives into its fold, without Baptism, heterodox persons who have not even received the form of Orthodox Baptism.

i) The performance of Baptism by pouring and sprinkling by Russian clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate.

This matter occupied the attention of the Hierarchy following reliable information received from a priest who had recently arrived from Russia and who stated to the Holy Synod that Baptism is not performed according to the Orthodox form, that is, by immersions and emersions, but by pouring water upon the head of the person being baptized or by sprinkling.

The Holy Synod judged the matter to be extremely serious, especially in conjunction with the fact that the same practice is also observed in many New Calendarist Churches abroad, where Baptism is not performed by canonical immersions and emersions.

This matter was also examined in conjunction with an earlier decision of the Holy Synod, according to which “Baptism” performed by pouring or sprinkling ought to be repeated. Owing to the seriousness of the matter, it was decided that the subject should be taken up again at a subsequent session of the Hierarchy.

[…]

 

Greek source: Κήρυξ Γνησίων Ορθοδόξων [Herald of the Genuine Orthodox], Vol. 30, No. 88, April 1985, pp. 99-101.